andre_noble4

I second John K's advice to uninstall and then reinstall, but get a Caucasian, Asian and African to do it in turns and see which result you find most pleasing. (Smiley face)

My instinct says he's probably going to try to sell it to you for double than it's fair market value. The market for these is extremely soft, and will likely get softer. Doesn't detract from fact that these are excellent cameras, the likes of which we'll never see again. Summary: it's a buyer's market for Bronica 6x6 - big time.

 

The best 6x6 Bronica (opinion here) is the newest SQ-Ai series, which didn't begin until appx. 1990.

 

But the SQ series is overall is considered reliable. The S Series lenses are good, but they are not the most recent lenses to fit that camera, which are the 'PS' type lenses.

 

If everything is in good working order, good condition, offer him $750 USD.

 

Remember, you may have to sink another $750 into getting multiple items of the kit serviced soon after you purchase.

The Gaskets were brand new.

 

In all due respect, problem may just be a figment of my imagination. But I'm going to use Saran Wrap over the mouth before I seal the gasket - just in case, and also I'm going to conduct a long-term test.

 

Good news: When I opened long stored bottles, the air seal made that 'Psst' sound, also my Ansco 130 developer stayed clear after 3 or 4 months in seal, partially full Grolsch-type bottle.

John, it's happening to you as we speak.

John H.: Why should photographer arrive early the next day when he's already stayed up late the previous night waiting for the deadbeats?

 

For me, sleep is just as important as money.

By that, I assume you have definitely NOT had this problem too?

Is it possible my chemicals are slowly evaporating (seeping out in gaseous

form) from the Grolsch-type beer bottles I store them in?

 

I'm not certain, but I'm starting to suspect it.

 

Anyone else use brown 'beer bottle' that has the Grolsch type clamp who has

experience to say if this is a possiblity with these types of tops?

 

In my case. it involves brand new bottle from home brewing company, brand

new tops, room temperature storage, with it (possible evaporation) over the

course of weeks/months??? (And if this IS the case, how come beer doesn't

evaporate from same bottles?)

 

Any feedback from users with real world experience using these bottles to

store chemistry (developers, fixers, etc.) appreciated.

Send it back. This loose barell will only continue to annoy you, as it would me. I've had two otherwise nice Nikon lenses with loose play of that sort. It really annoys me, and from now on, I'm just going to return any such Nikon lens to store and request an exchange.

1) Try to always handle negatives by the edges, with gloves if you can. It's not the dirt, but hand oils over time which are corrosive.

 

2) Don't put your negs in Print File. This is a sure way for SCRATCHES - nice, straight scathes running horizontally along your image as a tiny piece of dust/dirt ALWAYS finds it's way inside and then as you remove your film, the space is so small the grain rubs your film, and your left wondering what lepperchan scratched your film.

 

Instead 1st sheath negatives in Polyguard Archival Sleeving (Available at B&H Photo - one roll lasts a long time) -

 

It's the sleeving Prolabs return your "process only - do not cut" negatives/positives in. Then while film is in this sheething, you can NOW insert them in PrintFile 'Ultima' pages. The Ultima version of print file pages is specifically wider to accomodate the extra bulk of pre-sleeved negatives. When you remove sleeved negatives from Ultima pages, you pull negative in Polyguard sheath at same time. The Polyguard sleeve protects against 'grit scratches'.

 

After 20 years, this is one tidbit I learned the hard way, and I wish it had been indoctrinated earlier.

 

Again, DO NOT put naked, unsleeved negatives in plastic negative pages such as Print File, Savage, etc.

Also consider negative size to camera size ratio. Personally, I think the RZ belongs inside the studio.

 

Sounds like sticking with your 4x5 and aquiring a smaller 6x6 medium format (or even 35mm) system will be the key.

 

Problem with med format slr and 35mm optics is curvinear distortion - something you cannot have in serious architecture.

PS, KOH's SQ-Ai film back repair is $50 USD

 

see http://www.kohscamera.com

 

(516) 826-9566

You could send to KOH's camera in U.S. From what I understand, they're just as good as Tamron service at 1/2 the cost. They charge $95 USD for lens,Tamron charges $195 USD to repair lens.

 

Tamron USA service is good too, by the way. With the weak dollar, sending to USA for repair may be the way to go. Good luck.

You can, but shouldn't use 120 film in the 220 back on a regular basis. You instead should (can) buy a 120 SQ insert, and place this inside the shell of the '220' back, you'lll now have a 120 back with a spare 220 insert.

Gary, did your photographer actually keep his negatives from 20 years back? Just curious. Sounds like you'll have fun with new reprints. Especially if some done on medium format, sure to look great.

Interesting choice of subject for your test (???).

Tom, by how many stops would you say it was underexposed?

Send lens to Tamron for estimate.

Your photoflo info IS true of Jobo processing equipment.

Yes, if you can afford it, get a PS 80 in excellent shape, the 80's especially are relatively cheap. Why suffer through without the feature you really need. Replace your 80 first.

 

Also, the angle of view on the 40 PS is VERY wide and it takes 95mm filters. The 50 PS takes 77mm filters.

 

As far as S vs PS, as someone recently mentioned, PS is better as it's like got less wear and tear it's a newer model.

 

At this stage, since Bronica and most other MF is/will be discontinued, the only S lens I'd seriously consider is the 105 S reputedly the sharpest in lineup.

Robert, I've used the AFS 300 2.8 (version I) with a TC14E II. As you may know, the 300 AFS 2.8 by itself is phenomenally sharp and contrasty.

 

When using the 1.4, the results are so sharp that I had forgotten that I used a teleconverter, ie, the results remain razor-sharp and professional. But it sounds like you already anticipated this.

 

I don't have experience with the 1.7x or 2x.

This is my guess, I may be wrong: You should be supporting a 80-200 2.8 with other hand anyways, otherwise you're putting too much stress on the lens mount and (may) be at risk of creating problems with alignment, etc.

It seems like such a specialist lens, do you really need it. Also, some guy on (IIRC) camerareview.com or photographyreview.com panned the lens badly. I'd get a second opinion. Finally, Bronica put out MTF info on their PS lenses (still available on Tamron website archives) but negleted to say if was 40% 20% 10% etc, or what the f stop was when resolution was measured, making the MTF info useless.

How about practical measures to minimize your risk? Ie, keep all your gear with you all the time., etc...

 

Equipment insurance gets real expensive, I looked into it a while back. I think it's cheaper to use commen sense in the long run, as insurance companies charge an arm and leg for camera gear insurance. It's like you'd have to have all your stuff stolen every 7 years to break even with them - in other words, if on average you can avoid a theft within (approximately) a 7 year period, you are doing better than insurance company percentages.

 

Liability insurance is another matter. That I recommend if you shot professionally. Even when you do carry $8,000 worth of gear, you can pick the most expensive and maximize protection of that.

 

Some New Yorkers used carry around 'mug money' in the '70's.

 

Likewise, you could carry a Nikon D1x, and offer that first to any armed theives...

That's good news about the Bronica PS lens shutters being hearty, as you know, it may be harder to get Bronica lenses serviced many years down the line...

 

I am always impressed with the rare photographer (such as yourself) who gets his/her money's worth by using their equipment as it was meant. 1500 exposures a lens a year is good use in my opinion.

In my opinion, a selenium-toned B&W print from your Rollei B&W negatives is superior to anything digital. I do not accept ink let prints as being worth my time (and this is after I gave ink jet prints a try for a year or so).